President Donald Trump’s second term has unleashed a wave of aggressive trade deals and industrial interventions aimed at reviving American manufacturing. From billion-dollar equity stakes in companies like Intel to sweeping tariffs on foreign goods, the administration is reshaping the U.S. economic landscape. But while some sectors are seeing short-term gains, the long-term consequences are hitting hardest where resilience runs deepest—in the homes, fields, and factories of working Americans.
In early 2025, the U.S. added 10,000 manufacturing jobs, with the auto sector leading the charge. Foreign investment surged, with Japan, South Korea, and the EU pledging over $1.3 trillion in U.S.-bound capital. Intel’s Ohio chip plant, despite delays, is projected to be one of the largest in the world, and defense-related manufacturers are expanding capacity. Yet the momentum is uneven. Durable goods makers have shed over 33,000 jobs this year, and rising input costs from tariffs are squeezing margins. While some family-owned firms praise the tariffs for leveling the playing field, others face higher prices, shrinking demand, and the painful reality of layoffs.
Trump’s strategy hinges on two pillars: imposing tariffs to pressure foreign governments and industries, and investing directly in U.S. firms through federal equity stakes. Intel’s stock has surged 66 percent this year, buoyed by government backing and private investment from Apple and Nvidia. But critics warn this approach risks politicizing industrial policy. Kevin O’Leary, among others, has called the strategy “force-feeding taxpayer money into failing companies.” Intel’s Ohio plant has been delayed to 2030, raising concerns about deliverables and oversight. Meanwhile, Taiwan rejected Trump’s demand to relocate chip production, exposing the limits of economic coercion.
Delving deeper into cause and effect, Trump’s tariffs—now averaging roughly 23 percent on steel, aluminum, and key components—are designed to make imports more expensive and incentivize reshoring. In practice, however, manufacturers pass those costs on to consumers, driving up prices on cars, appliances, and industrial goods. Higher input costs have also forced some firms to automate more aggressively, dampening employment gains, while global retaliation has eroded U.S. export markets and injected volatility into supply chains.
Nowhere is the fallout more visible—or more heartbreaking—than in the agricultural sector. Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, launched on April 2, 2025, triggered retaliatory measures from China, which slapped duties of up to 34 percent on American crops. Soybean exports—once a $24 billion trade channel—have collapsed. Virginia’s soybean shipments to China fell from $784 million in 2023 to near zero in 2025. China now buys from Argentina and Brazil, which have slashed export taxes to undercut U.S. prices.
The emotional toll is mounting. Families who’ve worked the land for generations are watching their crops rot in silos, their equipment rust in barns, and their futures slip away. “The frustration is overwhelming,” said the American Soybean Association, as farmers watched lost markets replace headlines of U.S. aid. Even Republican farm-state lawmakers joined the outcry—Senator Chuck Grassley asked, “Why would the USA help bail out Argentina while they take American soybean producers’ biggest market?”
That bailout—$20 billion in U.S. financial support to Argentina—was intended to stabilize the peso and sever ties with Beijing. But just days after securing the lifeline, Argentina suspended export taxes on soybeans, corn, and wheat—levies that had reached as high as 26 percent. The result: 2.66 million tonnes of soybeans booked for export in November and December, more than half of China’s near-term needs. That tax-free flood undercut American producers, driving Chicago Board of Trade futures down 1.5 percent to $10.10 a bushel. For many U.S. farmers, it felt like betrayal—watching their own government fund the very competition that replaced them.
And now, Trump has turned his sights on dismantling one of the most transformative economic and climate policies in recent history: President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Since taking office, Trump has paused funding for IRA programs, blocked offshore wind projects, and issued executive orders halting federal support for electric vehicle infrastructure. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law has tracked over 50 actions aimed at scaling back or eliminating federal climate measures. The result? Chaos in the clean energy sector, stalled projects, and a chilling effect on private investment.
The IRA was designed to make clean energy more affordable, accelerate its adoption, and restore American competitiveness in industries such as battery manufacturing and electric vehicles. It earmarked $369 billion for climate and energy initiatives and catalyzed billions more in private capital. But Trump’s rollback threatens to reverse that momentum. Energy Innovation estimates that dismantling the IRA could result in $32 billion in higher energy bills for consumers and a $190 billion reduction in GDP by 2035. Thousands of clean energy jobs are already at risk. Developers face uncertainty over tax credits and safe harbor provisions, making new projects financially unviable. States like Louisiana, once poised to lead in offshore wind, are watching as the opportunity slips away.
This isn’t just policy—it’s sabotage. And it’s happening in plain sight. Across the country, workers, farmers, and families are refusing to be collateral damage. They are organizing, speaking out, and demanding a future built on fairness—not favoritism. They know that real economic strength doesn’t come from bailouts or backroom deals—it comes from empowering communities, investing in clean industries, and building supply chains that serve people, not just profits.
And yet, Trump’s economic playbook continues to receive cover from the very institutions meant to check executive overreach. Congressional Republicans have repeatedly voted to suspend their own authority to challenge Trump’s sweeping tariffs, redefining procedural rules to avoid accountability. Instead of standing up for their constituents, they’ve stood behind Trump—even as his trade war drives up inflation and bankrupts farmers. As Rep. John Larson put it, “Democrats came to the floor ready to end these cost-raising tariffs, but Republicans stood with Donald Trump against their constituents.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court—stacked with Trump-appointed justices—has granted emergency stays and shadow docket rulings that allow his most aggressive policies to proceed unchecked. From firing independent agency heads to imposing tariffs without congressional approval, the Court has repeatedly sided with Trump, even when lower courts ruled his actions unconstitutional. Now, the justices are set to hear the case that could decide the fate of Trump’s economic centerpiece: the tariffs themselves. And while some conservatives quietly hope the Court reins him in, the record suggests they may once again legitimize his overreach.
President Joe Biden’s first term offered a glimpse of a different future. The Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS and Science Act utilized tax credits, grants, and regulatory support to stimulate domestic manufacturing investment. According to the BlueGreen Alliance, the Biden-Harris administration created 775,000 new manufacturing jobs and is projected to add over 300,000 annually through 2032. These policies didn’t punish—they empowered. They lowered the cost of capital, encouraged long-term planning, and helped rebuild industries from the ground up.
The contrast in agricultural impact is just as stark. Under Biden, net farm income surged to record highs, reaching $189 billion in 2022 and averaging $165 billion annually. Farmers benefited from restored trade relationships, stronger commodity prices, and reduced reliance on bailouts. Agricultural exports reached a record $196 billion, and prices for soy and corn rebounded as global demand surged. In contrast, under Trump, net farm income stagnated at around $94 billion per year, with farmers heavily dependent on $28 billion in trade war bailouts to offset losses caused by retaliatory tariffs. Soybean exports to China collapsed, and market access eroded. While Biden’s payments stabilized farms during pandemic disruptions, Trump’s payments were reactive—compensating farmers for damage his own trade policies inflicted.
Farmers under Biden made significantly more money, with fewer bailouts and more market access. Under Trump, they were treated as shock absorbers in geopolitical battles. As one Montana farmer put it, “In 2019, our administration was at war with all of our customers. Under Biden, we’re rebuilding those relationships.” The numbers bear it out: Biden’s strategy lifted farm income, restored exports, and strengthened rural economies. Trump’s strategy left farmers dependent, exposed, and betrayed.
The contrast is clear. Trump and the GOP have built an economic model that thrives on volatility, coercion, and selective survival. It rewards insiders, punishes communities, and treats working Americans as expendable. Biden’s approach—grounded in incentives, transparency, and long-term investment—offers a different path. One that lifts communities instead of leaving them behind. One that sees farmers not as pawns, but as pillars. One that believes American strength comes from shared prosperity, not political theater.
Behind every policy decision lies a family struggling to make ends meet, a worker hoping for stability, and a farmer praying that the next harvest won’t be their last. We owe them more than rhetoric. We owe them results. And we owe them a strategy that prioritizes people.
References:
- Argentina’s soy exports to China soar amid US bailout, fueling tensions in Trump camp.
- Why soybean farmers are raising concerns about Trump’s Argentina bailout, WBUR
- Trump’s Argentina bailout sparks fury among farmers, Republicans, Newsweek
- Forbes, “If Trump Destroys Inflation Reduction Act, Economic Fallout May Come,” March 2025
- TIME, “How Trump Is Trying to Undo the Inflation Reduction Act,” February 2025
- Thomson Reuters, “IRA’s Uncertain Future: How the Trump Administration’s Approach Could Impact Corporate Tax Functions,” February 2025
- Penn Wharton Budget Model, “Economic Effects of Tariffs and Trade Policy,” 2025
- BlueGreen Alliance, “Manufacturing Job Growth Under the Biden-Harris Administration,” 2024
- Energy Innovation Policy & Technology LLC, “Impact of Project 2025 on U.S. Employment,” 2025
- Joint Economic Committee, “Manufacturing Investment Trends and Tariff Impacts,” Q2 2025
- Intel Corporation, Investor Relations and Project Timeline Updates, 2025
- CNBC, “Kevin O’Le
Mentonym Express 